Task Force to Engage Maine’s Youth
November 2, 2006
Policy Group
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's start. We went longer than we thought this morning. We thought it would be important for you to
comment on what you heard today. We will do round robin, you have the right to pass, we will check back.
Participant: I’m Mary, I work for Labor. I think we need to be strategic about language.
Participant: I’m Linda. I have no comment.
Participant: I am Bette, I was pleased to hear the debate about language. I have not heard so much information
before about how to introduce legislation,
Participant: I am Dan, no comment now.
Participant: My name is Carol, I think the declarative language was good.
Participant: I’m Kathy, my issues are with the language too.
Participant: I’m Dean. I think the language is important, if it is not right it won't have my support.
Participant: My name is Deanna, the language to follow through and support.
Participant: I’m Maureen, I was impressed with Phil and there were many good points.
Participant: My name is Deb. Language was important to me and I am concerned about the intended impact,
that the outcome be what people hope for. I am concerned about the sending and receiving language.
Susan Lieberman:
I was very excited about the conversation. I think the discussion of language is positive that we are looking at it
now rather than in January or February. I hope the people in this group should continue to give feedback. I hope
you continue to think about what is being written.
Carol Carriuolo:
You can also get on the E-mail list of the other group to get information.
Pam Flood:
You are not relegated to one group or another.
Participant: I am Michael from Maine Transition Network. I like that we discussed language. I feel that we
have dropped the student piece out of the language. If the student is not at the table, they will not be engaged.
This does not strike me as a good place to plant my flag.
Carol Carriuolo:
We will post this, it will be some of the values showing up in this group.
1
Pam Flood:
I took some notes. This is the strategy piece. How do we engage with schools and what are we going forth with
to provide guidelines or ideas? Some things that emerged are the LR based diploma, local control, how do we
develop a process to mitigate some of these barriers. How do we develop language to identify who does what?
The piece about students with multiple placements...we want to target the holes. We use the language of
network of support. We have sketched that out, a web, if something happens to one strand it affects all. What
happens if one entity does not follow through? Everything loses its footing.
Carol Carriuolo:
We may need to adjust the agenda. We will review language about target population and start to introduce a
data matrix to see where data comes from and where the holes are. This afternoon we can start to define what
makes good strategy and how it fits into the matrix. When we finish today we will have the direction that we are
heading toward.
Pam Flood:
We told you we would come back with language. We are starting to frame it. We tried to take your ideas and
start to frame it. Part of our work will be to do research today. We have reference materials here and we can do
Internet searches from here also.
Carol Carriuolo:
You may focus on one part, then we will collect that information. Any questions? In your packet you have two
lavender sheets. We will have pairs and one group of three to do this. You will have a 10-minute discussion to
fill this out, then we will have a group discussion to finesse this. (Reading lavender sheet.) If you could get into
a group- we are asking you to think about this sheet on Target Population and tell us what is clear, what is
confusing, what is missing. There is a place for "other" also. You have 10 minutes to do this. You can write on
the paper. It is for you to pick this apart. It seems to be one of the concerns that came out this morning.
(Participants are working in groups on “Target Population” language.)
Carol Carriuolo:
Take another two minutes.
Let's bring this to the whole group. Susan will remind us of our charge.
Susan Lieberman:
One area of concern was for youth who experience disruption. These are the kids the legislation is designed to
focus on. In addition, there are the youth who are described in the Casey National Foundation, an increase in
numbers of kids in Maine who are not in school or working.
Carol Carriuolo:
We provided a template for you to reflect on, was it useful? It sounded like people had a response to the
language. We could talk about what is missing, is that a helpful place to start?
Participant: We talked about how we like the list, but there does not seem anything to address the kids who are
not engaged, not the homeless, but just not in school. What language do we use to include them? There is "but
not limited" language that is not here. It seems to me there is another group of kids.
Participant: Students could not be engaged because of divorce, drug abuse, pregnancy and fatherhood, other
issues like that.
2
Participant: Kids are bouncing around the system. How do we help them get educational credit as opposed to
stopping the multiple placements?
Susan Lieberman:
That is what we are looking at, we need to look at how to prevent, intervene, and engage the kids.
Participant: I agree with Dean, I think we look wholistically and for solutions that go to the root of the
problem. We talked about kids that are not in school, they are not engaged, and it may be within their control,
but they have made some choices such as running away and dropping out. We want to make sure they are
addressed. With behavioral health issues they can experience interruptions and not necessarily be in foster care.
Carol Carriuolo:
Next group?
Participant: The transition piece, when kids are in a youth development center, how do we capture them?
Participant: We talked about the same thing, why are these students not in the system? Where are they, what
are they doing, who are they? What is the real issue? It is not in the language.
Carol Carriuolo:
Where do you think it needs to go? In the definition?
Participant: Yes. Also disruption, we think it needs to be defined. I have another question; my understanding
was very focused, not wholistic, because there is a big issue with causes. I am afraid if we bite off too much we
won't get any of it.
Participant: I was invited to participate in a strategy group, I thought our task was to come up with strategy.
Susan Lieberman:
One piece is looking at legislation, the other is looking at strategies to prevent, intervene, re-engage kids.
Pam Flood:
We all went away with homework to bring back. One thing was that Michael had identified strategies. I think as
we begin to articulate, these can clarify down the road.
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's talk about what was confusing.
Participant: One is that what we have defined for disruption is “conditions beyond their control,” what we put
in legislation is “may or not be.” One such example is pregnancy. If we put "may or may not be" I think you
will get more opposition. I am concerned that if we say things that are beyond their control, how do we control
the vectors? An example is hunger. It may not be apparent at school that the root problem is a nutritional one.
Participant: I think one thing was what Dan brought up, about engaging Maine youth. For me it means not just
these issues, but any young person who is not in school for any reason. Maybe they don't feel they belong. It
seems to have been lost.
Participant: The Children’s Alliance picked that up as a priority. When we think about children we think about
all kids. Recently we found in Augusta that the school board reviewed data that was scary, our dropout in
3
Coney High is close to 52% and it did not seem to be because of these reasons. For us, the focus on kids makes
sense. It really needs to be on kids and why they are not succeeding in school. It is far larger than we thought. In
past discussion we focused on small groups. The problem is much larger. The strategies we need to think about
are more than behavior or welfare.
Participant: I agree. Students with disabilities frequently become disengaged for a variety of reasons. It is a
focus on all kids, for many reasons.
Participant: We had the same conversation. The list is not comprehensive, it is limited. We want to reach all.
Even on the layout it seems one paragraph is disconnected from the one above. Foster care is not addressed.
Participant: It is confusing- the word support means different things to different people. I don't know what
support means...towards what?
Carol Carriuolo:
Did you have a word?
Participant: I can think of some. But that word is just out there...
Participant: We talked about transitioning to successful adulthood. It could mean different things, but we talked
about transitioning any kid. A lot of those who are out of school, out of work, or disengaged are in the range of
16 to 34-years old.
Participant: I forget if we have rules about talking about your group. I work for JMG and we address all these
issues except the psychiatric. We are working with kids in foster care, we have programs in place...
Pam Flood:
We want to stay on track and will look at all that later, we can put it in parking lot.
Participant: Foster care does not necessarily mean disruption in education. It may be the opposite. We talked
about homelessness. I know of a kid who refused to live at home but could not be registered in school because
his mother had custody. Does it happen to others? I think it is confusing.
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's move to what is clear. All is important, we need to define the target population to get to strategy. Did you
feel anything was clear in this language?
Participant: I think it is a clear statement, although it may not be right.
Participant: I don't think educational disruption is true.
Pam Flood:
We will take this back to the other group.
Participant: It does say "educational disruption and homelessness,” it does say in legislation “conditions."
Carol Carriuolo:
Where does this go now?
Pam Flood:
4
I think it goes back to the group. In terms of any parameters, in terms of language...
REVIEW “TARGET POPULATION” LANGUAGE
What is Clear:
List is clear
What is Confusing:
“Beyond control”- may or may not be beyond control
“Engaging Maine youth” for any Maine young person?
Post-high school students
Those not working
All kids? Drop-out rate 52% Cony High School
Incarceration/youth detention centers
Foster care/homeless
What is Missing:
Problems much larger
Group of kids who aren’t engaged in school but are not homeless: divorce, pregnancy, substance abuse
Analysis of why as opposed to stopping multiple placements
Students who are making choices
Residential treatment centers
Transition piece: students between youth detention centers and school
Why, who, what is the real situation
Majority may not be students with disabilities
Other:
"But not limited to"
How to prevent, intervene, engage...
Look at wholistically-get to root of system
Education
Absent from/missing school, educational program
Support and engage, facilitating success
“Caused by conditions such as...”
Carol Carriuolo:
Why don't we do the scope.
Susan Lieberman:
People can think on it over lunch.
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's do the same thing before lunch; we will look at the Scope of Work. You have eight minutes this time.
Participant: Is this our jurisdiction? Does it reflect the original goals and intent?
Susan Lieberman:
I am hearing people say kids at risk who are not engaged in school or work. How can we work that in here? I
think people’s comments were helpful.
Carol Carriuolo:
5
You have two sheets, goldenrod and blue, so please review that at your table. We are looking for what is clear,
what is missing, what is not clear.
(Participants are working on Scope of Work review in small groups.)
Carol Carriuolo:
You have another minute to wrap up.
Carol Carriuolo:
Can we chart this? What is missing?
Participant: I need more specificity.
Carol Carriuolo:
So not enough information.
Participant: We had "voice of the youth.”
Participant: We need to come up with a process. It needs to be defined in the scope of the work.
Carol Carriuolo:
What else?
Participant: It does not connect to the first part we talked about. It is different.
Participant:
What is a "dynamic integrated process?"
Participant: Looking at the bottom, at least for Special Ed, they would also include housing, health, and legal
issues. They have to be part of the planning. I think we include these. The others include transportation also.
Carol Carriuolo:
What about confusing parts?
Participant: The work dynamic. What does it mean?
Participant: We had engagement as well, we seem to be narrowing.
Participant: I think its clear that we want to use these people, it is clear who we want to involve.
Participant: You may want to add businesses.
Participant: I like “integrated” and think it is important to keep. I think people understand that all people at the
table need to work together. You get an IEP or a plan, you have an agency representative who is supposed to do
something and they don't. It may not be an integrated service.
Participant: We have not really involved public safety, such as the Sheriff’s department and police, the issues
they see. It can help broaden the picture.
6
Participant: I think our work is at a critical juncture, it is not just about education. This process seems to be
stuck on education. What I see is that my colleagues from other divisions are no longer coming to the meetings.
I thought it was broader than this.
Carol Carriuolo:
If we relate it to the focus here, it seems educationally focused.
Participant: I thought we were talking about kids who are completely disengaged. It was helpful to get a primer
on the legislative process, but maybe the time would be better spent on this process.
Carol Carriuolo:
Thank you for that feedback, it is always difficult but I will bring it to the group.
Participant: It is unclear here, the "challenges of the new century."
Participant: Our suggestion is to cut it off at "communities" and get rid of the rest.
Participant: There is a grammatical error in paragraph 1.
Carol Carriuolo:
I will go get Susan and Pam so they can rewrite it, it is important to go into the afternoon with this as a
foundation piece. It is one of our outcomes to define target population and engagement, and then begin to look
at specific practices. I am hearing from you that these two statements don't mesh. In order to go forward we
need to clarify this. Let's take lunch now; we will reconvene at 1:00. There is a computer here and data here for
you to look at. I don't think there are enough copies for all but they are here for you to use.
SCOPE OF WORK
What is Clear:
Who we want to include in the process
Integrated- important to keep-may need definition
What is Confusing:
The word dynamic-what does it mean?
Engagement- now defined differently
Does community leaders include business?
Challenges of the new century-where does this come from?
Cut it off at "communities get"
What is Missing:
Does not talk about the work to be done
The voice of the youth
Process needs to be defined
Does not connect to the first piece- is it all youth?
For Special Ed would include housing, health, legal
Other:
Public safety, police, state police, how are they involved?
Not just about education
We are losing other voices
Grammar errors
7
(Participants break for lunch and reconvene at 1:00 PM.)
Statement at the beginning of the afternoon session:
“The Governors Task Force to Engage Maine’s Youth recommendations are designed to facilitate
active engagement for youth who are at risk and/or who are not presently engaged in school and/or
work. These youth may experience disruptive conditions which may or may not be beyond their controls,
conditions cause by...”
Pam Flood:
I heard that the other group is rewriting a lot. I think the shared understanding is so important. Many shared
great resources. We have lots of information. We appreciate you hanging in there with us; we want to make sure
it’s your words.
We have a parking lot here. Please take care of your own needs; the food is in the other room. Make sure you
take care of yourself. I have access codes for us to get online.
Participant: I can't get online in this room.
Carol Carriuolo:
We had a staff meeting during lunch and made some decisions for you to look at. It is important to define target
population and other language, and we would like to see thumbs up or down or to the side to see if you thought
it was a good use of our time.
Pam Flood:
We can leave with homework assignments also, which would be to identify some strategies and data. Until we
know what the scope of work is and the target population, we can't do much.
Carol Carriuolo:
How do you feel about doing this today: completing and changing this, agreeing on the target population, and
defining the language. Thumbs up?
Pam Flood:
I will scribe.
Carol Carriuolo:
We will go back to the definitions. Pam and Susan crafted a new statement. We also have charts to the side if
we need to define. (Reading definition) Is this on track?
Participant: “At risk” of what?
Carol Carriuolo:
Let's pause here and talk about what we mean.
Participant: It means in terms of becoming disengaged, and then you need to define that.
Pam Flood:
At risk of what?
Participant: It could be not graduating from high school and not becoming adequately prepared for life.
8
Participant: I'm laughing because it is so broad.
Participant: At risk of unsuccessful transitions into adulthood.
Pam Flood:
Quick round robin, let's capture ideas. What pops into your mind when you hear “at risk?”
Participant: Failure.
Participant: It could be being mired in poverty.
Participant: It seems we are talking about two groups, at risk of academic failure and not gaining meaningful
employment.
Participant: It is not just school and work. It is about others, relationships and connections.
Participant: I would think instead of saying at risk of what, to go more positive and encourage all of Maine’s
youth to be successful.
Participant: What do we want them to do? Succeed in employment.
Participant: It could be going on to more, going beyond that.
Susan Lieberman:
Before we sat down to this, we talked about the mission of successfully engaging all youth in work or their
communities. I realized we did not talk about the mission. When you talk about the issue of completing high
school, it affects those younger too. It is about all students.
Pam Flood:
I wanted to bring it back to community also. Here is brainstorming. We are starting to talk target population, are
we only talking about at risk in terms of academic failure? I think the mission is the positive piece. It is
narrowing it down from all youth to these who are at risk of not becoming engaged. I am not saying you have to
do that.
Participant: I think the premise is that the two indicators were not being in school and not working. I think the
scope of the work piece is bigger.
Participant: That question really can't be answered until we do a thorough analysis of that group of young
people. For example, a 16-year-old’s focus might be school; if they are 18 or 19 it might be continuing
education or working. Are they able to do what is expected at their developmental level? To me, we need to
understand as a group and see why they are not succeeding, then see what we need to change. We can't get to
that work until we understand it. That analysis should lead us to a broader sense of work.
Participant: If we think about the target population, our task force is designed to reengage those who are not in
school or work, depending on our target.
Pam Flood:
9
We had another meeting to see whom we are talking about. Now we can back out to reshape it. The
conversation came up about first and second graders. There was language about prevention, intervention, and
other terms we talked about.
Participant: It seems there are two groups: target population and those we want to impact. Your population for
analysis is different.
Participant: I think we are close.
Carol Carriuolo:
What needs to be in this definition?
Participant: I have a problem with “at risk,” because I think we have addressed that. It brings up other
questions. Is it because they can't read or other issues? Is it that they are homeless or LD or hungry?
Participant: I don't think we know at this point that youth who come in contact with the law are necessarily this
group. Data-wise we really don't know much about those kids. We don't have reliable data about them. We don't
have the information we need about them or other kids who are not in school.
Participant: Can we work backwards from kids who are not in school?
Pam Flood:
So say, "kids who are not presently engaged in school and/or work?” Do we want community too?
Participant: But who is to say that MySpace is in not being engaged in the community?
Participant: Is the community helping? Is the youth engaged in the community?
Carol Carriuolo:
That could be strategy. Is there agreement with this statement? (Reading) Do we need to discuss engaged?
Participant: You have a lot of words there. (Reading) "are intended to address the problems of Maine youth not
engaged (or at risk for not being engaged) in school or work."
Participant: I agree with that.
Pam Flood:
Does that work?
Participant: The “at risk” word comes back to me.
Pam Flood:
(Writing) “...are intended to address the problems of Maine youth who are not engaged or who are at risk for
disengaging from school or work.”
Participant: I needed that piece. It comes up with a strong statement.
Participant: I want to bring up families. I think families are part of the solution.
Susan Lieberman:
10
I need to see it all written.
Carol Carriuolo:
Can we see a thumbs-up? This is the lead statement. We are going for consensus.
Pam Flood:
I will rewrite this so you can see it. The second sentence, do we drop it? Do we work through a supporting
sentence?
Susan Lieberman:
We took out educational disruption because it was too broad.
Participant: We can get into trouble if we are not accurate with it.
Pam Flood:
If you knew nothing about this task force, would this make sense to you?
Participant: I would like clarification. I have been part of the group so I know what you are talking about, but
you need something to lead to it.
Participant: We want to work with kids who are not in school or working, is that correct? Is that too simple, if
we take out the engaged part?
Participant: But then what are they at risk for? You have that part with disengaging. They may be thinking
about not working. I go back to common sense; I would think they are not in school or are in school but not
engaged.
Participant: But a teacher or administrate may want to know what they are at risk for.
Pam Flood:
(Reading) “youth disengagement in school or work that may result from conditions which may or may not be...”
Participant: It may get wordy. I wonder if we should say “a variety of conditions” but not spell them all out.
We could spell them out but it should be accurate.
Participant: I like” beyond students’ control,” maybe you could list them out.
Susan Lieberman:
We had foster care; we want to phrase it so it is not due to foster care.
Pam Flood:
We could get prescriptive from our research. Do you want me to write it up so you can see it? Does this feel like
it is right? Thumbs? We can come back and do a final vote.
Carol Carriuolo:
Considering your comments on the scope of work, this is a jumping-off place to see if we can come to some
agreement about what we need to say. Knowing that until data research happens, keep it general.
(Reading the following statement.)
11
“Keeping Maine s Youth Engaged is intended to provide specific long and short term strategies, policies
and/or legislation that will result in supporting active youth engagement in their communities, school,
and/or work. The recommendations of the Task Force will provide a framework through which youth
and their families, educators, state department liaisons, community leaders,…”
Participant: Does it say “all Maine youth?” It seems awkward.
Susan Lieberman:
What we meant is that they are actively identifying what they need. Someone said the voice of the kid, which is
what we were getting to.
Participant: So say to identify and receive.
Participant: That is good; it has the voice of the kid.
Participant: What is the purpose of this statement, who is it for?
Susan Lieberman:
This is so everyone here knows what we are doing here.
Participant: What is missing for me is the analysis part.
Participant: Do you mean data?
Carol Carriuolo:
Who we are talking about through data?
Participant: Is that part of the action plan? It sounds like this is our intent, then there is framework, maybe the
third paragraph is action steps, comprehensive analysis, review of current strategies, then we get to our
recommendations. Who do we have, what do we have, what else can we do? I think evaluation and
measurement is the key.
Carol Carriuolo:
Would it be helpful to have that in the scope of work?
Participant: Not if you look to programs that already do that.
Pam Flood:
Part of this afternoon is to look at the data we have and what is missing. In your handouts you will see what we
know, what we don't. I think what Carol is asking is, do you want to outline the process you want to follow as a
group? From that we bring out the results. Do you see your scope of work as the outcome? We were thinking of
the outcome of the scope of work, and then what we need to get that outcome.
Participant: To me it means scope of work. If you want to go at it the other way, call it something else.
Participant: It looks to me like the outcome is what you want.
Carol Carriuolo:
12
Is the language here clear? Do we want to finesse? It will become the guiding document. We know you are
anxious to get to the next step; we are too.
Participant: Is keeping “Maine Youth Engaged” our title? (No) It is capitalized here.
Participant: Would it be every Maine youth instead of all?
Participant: I think putting employers in is important.
Participant: I agree.
Participant: Employers or businesses?
Participant: I would go with employers because they are a direct link.
Participant: There are businesses in Maine that don't have employees. If I am a sole proprietor I may not be
effective at engaging.
Pam Flood:
We can put both.
Carol Carriuolo:
They can be champions without being employers. How are we doing? Anything else you can't live with, or that
is missing? We may come back and finesse but we don't want to keep reinventing.
Participant: So is that the title, “Keeping Maine’s Youth?”
Susan Lieberman:
That is what the task force name is. We may find the policies don't have that name but reflect the focus of the
work.
Participant: We could say, "Our purpose is to provide." This is our work, right?
Carol Carriuolo:
Any other comments? Thumbs?
Participant: I just noticed, here we have "youth and the adults who serve them." Some of the youth don't have a
family.
Susan Lieberman:
The term family in statute can be broadly defined. It talks about kinship and those involved with the child.
Carol Carriuolo:
Is that okay?
Participant:
Can we say youth family and take out "their?"
Participant: The word "allies" came up for me instead of just families.
13
Pam Flood:
Advocates?
Participant: That has another meaning.
Participant: We are missing something, stakeholders in their success.
Participant: How about community members instead of leaders?
Scope of Work: Keeping Maine’s Youth Engaged is intended to provide specific long and short term
strategies, policies, and/or legislation that will result in supporting active youth engagement in their
communities, school and/or work. The recommendations of the Task Force will provide a framework
through which youth, families, educators, state department liaisons, employers, community members,
and organizations may partner to ensure all/every Maine youth identify and receive the individualized
supports necessary for engagement.
Carol Carriuolo:
Any other additions, changes, things you can't live with? If we finish this we get to do data analysis. Thumbs?
Moving on!
Pam Flood:
(Reading) Target Population: “The recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force to Engage Maine
Youth are designed to address the problem of Maine youth who are not engaged or who are at risk of
disengaging from school or work. Disengagement may result from a variety of conditions that may or
may not be within the youth’s control. For example...”
Susan Lieberman:
We also have additional data.
Pam Flood:
We know this is not inclusive, but we wanted to ask questions about each population and we are looking by age
range. We may have data about grade school that we don't have on high school. We may break into groups. We
looked at what we have for data in these populations. What are the sources of data we should acquire? Who are
we not including? Who is missing? What else do we need to consider?
Susan Lieberman:
I will go over data that is on here. We also have additional data.
The homeless: this is from the 2004-5 school year and is those who were identified as homeless by their school.
We have some data, but we need some about kids not connected with school.
Participant: There are also these kids who told someone that they are homeless, who maybe don't meet the
federal definition.
Susan Lieberman:
I would say there is a larger group who meet that definition. The hospitalization is not broken down by age, but
we do have data from Kids Count from 2004-5 who were discharged with a mental health diagnosis. I also have
this which speaks to youth aged 5-18 that were in an inpatient hospital during one week in March.
Participant: So those numbers could be duplicated.
14
Susan Lieberman:
It is possible. The Youth Development Center in Long Creek...904 kids in 2005, 37 committed, 650 detained,
The information from Mountainview was not clear. Some of it may be duplication. There is a huge difference
between detained and committed to those who know the definition. Those youth who are detained may be in for
two days or six months. It is a higher number.
Participant: If there were a title for this sheet, what would it be?
Susan Lieberman:
We were looking at data for populations of youth.
Carol Carriuolo:
It is data that is relative to this work.
Participant: But not necessarily one-to-one.
Susan Lieberman:
We have data hot off the press from DHHS. We don’t have enough copies and need people to share.
Participant: Dan, do you have it electronically as well?
Participant: Possibly.
Susan Lieberman:
Let me read this, it is by age group. It is about kids in care.
Participant: Ages 18 and older are not in custody.
Susan Lieberman:
I will read the numbers. Ages zero to one, 233: ages two to three, 219: ages four to ten, 564 including some pre-
k: ages 11-14, 427: ages 15-17, 624. 18+ is 220. The total is 2287.
Participant: It is interesting that there is significant variance across the state in terms of kids in foster care.
Susan Lieberman:
There are slightly more males than females.
Pam Flood:
Are these the numbers in foster care right now? Is there data on drop-off rates?
Participant: I mean by foster care, those in the care of DHHS. If they drop out of school, we are working
actively to get them back in. We have identified that the kids with the most moves are these involved in DC, etc.
Pam Flood:
As we do this, if you have other data, we can do a couple things. We can break into groups. Let's share out.
Susan Lieberman:
I have information on completion rates. I am not sure it is accurately captured in the data because some things
may not be captured in each school’s drop-out data. For example, kids who were to transfer but didn't, kids who
15
are truant. There are many variables. I will pass this out. In the 2004 completion rates in Maine as captured,
what you need to look at is the progression from 9th to 12th grade. The DOE is looking at collecting this
differently in coming years; they plan to start in 8th grade. A huge change initiated by Susan Gendron.
Participant: So this is school’s definition.
Participant: There is an important clarification. Someone could tell you the difference; schools are reporting
child by child, which will give a much better picture as to whether kids are still engaged. This does not tell you
how many start kindergarten and finish.
Susan Lieberman:
There is a push to capture that, you can go into DOE and get that. It is interesting to look at the progression of
numbers. There is a drop between first and second that I did not expect. You have to be careful because between
eighth and ninth some go to private schools.
Participant: In some districts the standards differ, if the kid does not pass English they don't move to the next
grade.
Susan Lieberman:
I will pass this around; it is interesting for you to look at. I have one copy of fall enrollment by grade in public
school.
Pam Flood:
Maybe I can get copies made.
Participant: JMG’s graduate rate for our students that start in seventh grade and go through high school is 98%.
For those who start the program in high school it is 96%.
Susan Lieberman:
There are lots of great statistics. In Keeping Maine Children Connected we targeted children who experienced
disruption. 97% of those in secondary school were promoted to the next grade statewide. Of 84 kids who
experienced a disruption 66% of secondary school students were promoted to the next grade. However, those
who had a safety plan and/or were involved in extracurricular activities had higher promotion rates.
Participant: Some is talking about the problems and some is talking about the process.
Susan Lieberman:
Do you want to go into the data first, to see what we need to understand?
Pam Flood:
We can approach it a couple ways. We can break into groups and look across the spectrum, and ask what data
do we need. We need to develop a process. It is informative to see what is and what is not out there. Michael
found national data on foster care.
Participant: In a transition planning for foster possibilities study, 20,000 age out of foster care each year. Only
54% had graduated, (reading statistics) only 17% were self-supporting. My guess is that this is late 90s data.
Participant: This is consistent with more recent data.
16
Participant: From the Youth Exiting Schools data, for us, Special Ed students who participated in the transition
planning were more likely to get a diploma than those who did not. Having a plan is significant. Maine youth
with a diploma are five times more likely to be in school a year later. Students who completed tech school were
most likely to attend a voc-tech school and/or work full time after one year. Those with a job in school were
three times more likely to have one a year later. Those with a driver’s license are more likely to vote, hold a job,
and get together with friends after.
Pam Flood:
We can break into age groups, maybe three groups, and see what data we have and what we can share. We need
to assess, we have some data to start with. The next piece is how do we use it. We can break by age or by foster
care and homeless and look across the spectrum. We want to make sure we spend time and do research to
broaden our range.
Participant: We just finished a study and will publish a report called "Children’s Mental Health 2006." All the
data from state agencies...we have a database.
Susan Lieberman:
How can we access that?
Participant: I think it would be easy for us to give you the data sets. The report is not published yet.
Participant: We have research at JMG on all our students. We have worked with the DL and Muskie as well. I
am not sure yet what parts are not confidential.
Participant: Do you work with students not in school?
Participant: Yes, but it is partnered in school.
Participant: Our first part is to look at data. That is huge.
Susan Lieberman:
Let's start with that.
Participant: Could that form this list?
Pam Flood:
In terms of data sets, do we want any sort of report-out? Would some of you be willing to walk us through? I
don't know if there is analysis...is that embargoed until the report comes out?
Participant: Depends on the structure of the data and who put it out.
Pam Flood:
Would that be helpful for the next meeting? We all have an assignment to look and bring back relative data.
Susan Lieberman:
In light of what Dean has, does it make sense to take a few minutes to see if there are additional categories?
This is on the problem, not the solution at this point.
Participant: This is predicated on...
17
Susan Lieberman:
On the idea that we need to start somewhere, it is not definitive.
Pam Flood:
It came from brainstorming we did earlier. In terms of the youth on whom we should consider collecting data,
we have a limited list. I think we need to keep this out and expand this list.
Participant:
Do any of these lists include illnesses like cancer?
Participant: DOE does capture that.
Participant: We are the only state that requires private insurance to report claims. We just got federal approval
to transfer Maine Care data to that.
Participant: Behavioral health...kids who go into temporary care
Participant: That can affect them if they are disrupted from their school.
Participant: Also, a report on how parents view their children based on a mental health stand. Also OSA on
how kids view themselves. It is interesting; it is radically different.
Pam Flood:
This will lead us to other questions on the data we have.
Susan Lieberman:
One challenge on gathering data on kids not in school is it is hard to count them. Does anyone have information
on kids any age who are not in school or working? That is why we asked about foster care.
Participant: Census reports may be a place to look.
Participant: Agencies who run shelters.
Susan Lieberman:
There is the Point-In-Time survey , by MSHA. When you do a shelter count it is hard to get an unduplicated
number, so they do a count for a day or two and extrapolate over the year.
Participant: There is information on group homes. I think behavioral health would have it. They had a figure of
400 kids for Androscoggin alone.
Susan Lieberman:
Kids who are not in school or working, any age… I am trying to capture the younger ones also. I want to know
if we can capture that data, if anyone has information about these youth. It is easy to look at hospitals and
correctional institutes.
Participant: How about kids who are home schooled?
Susan Lieberman:
But are they engaged? How do you capture who is actively or not actively engaged in home school? How do
you get that?
18
Pam Flood:
I'll put it down so we know we will try to get data.
Participant: If you home school, you have to take out an application. An interesting comparison would be how
many get a GED.
Participant: There is no mechanism to follow up, there are many home schooled who do not contact the state.
Pam Flood:
How about immigrants?
Susan Lieberman:
We can capture them if they are in school, but how do we get it if they are not- or are not working?
Participant: What about the adult basic education folks, those who go back to get GEDs? And literacy services,
how old are they and how long have they been out of school?
Susan Lieberman:
Who is using the service, how long have they been out of school?
Participant: Employment...would they have that?
BRAINSTORMING- CATEGORIES
4-agency collaborative-Rumford Group Home
Children with life threatening illness
General medical care
Mental health
Migrants
Adult education
Home school (GED?)
Psychotropic medications
Immigrants
Maine health data organization
Behavioral health, kids who are temporarily placed
Maine survey data (Maine projects) how parents view their children
OSA- how kids view themselves
Data on kids out of school
Challenges in gathering data on kids out of school
Shelter agencies, Point-In-Time
Census report
Literacy volunteer services
Pam Flood:
This is a growing list; we will bring it each time and add to it. For the rest of the day, if we can, do some of the
next steps to see where we want to go. I don't want to keep you late but I do want to finish up some things. I
would like to do the next step piece to see what to bring back to the next meeting. You have a Next Steps sheet
so you can write it down. I want to thank you all for the information. As we look through the data we may see
more that we want. Can you think of things you want to see at the next meeting?
19
Susan Lieberman:
Can we get some data before, so there is additional information we can have at the next meeting? We don't want
to duplicate.
Pam Flood:
Some of the mining can be done here, you can send us the link and we can print it out. Are there other things
you would like to have done or like to see at the next meeting? Any resources? Any articles that would be
informative or helpful? I will bring copies. We will start building a library.
Participant: Is there an agreement as to the amount of contact with the other group?
Susan Lieberman:
Was this morning helpful?
Participant: It was somewhat.
Susan Lieberman:
We debate about that, morning or afternoon. In the afternoon people are tired. In the morning you are fresher.
You are all members of this force and at some point someone may ask you about the legislation, so we want you
to all have information about it.
Participant: Is there a timeline?
Pam Flood:
If we have a scheduled afternoon debriefing, we may be able to leave early while the other group may not. That
is the other reason to meet together in the morning.
Carol Carriuolo:
Would it be helpful for Deb to give us a briefing?
Participant: If Michael could bring in information about YES, or any other programs that address these issues,
that would be helpful.
Participant: YES is just data collection. It was a post-school outcome study.
Pam Flood:
For the next agenda, what would you like to have happen?
Participant: Data mining.
Participant: Understanding data sources.
Participant: I have concerns about data mining. Much information is captured; it is hard to get some agencies to
tell you what they have. My qualm is that it would be helpful if they could be involved. Maybe we invite Jay
Yeo in. Many agencies capture information about age, school, and grade, but getting it can be a major problem
if you don't involve the right people. It would be helpful to have the people with the most direct knowledge.
20
Pam Flood:
Would you like to have people come to the next meeting? We could look at having people in to do
presentations.
Participant: I think we need to decide what data we want. You could get more data than is useful to you.
Carol Carriuolo:
We need to pull out the data that is important to what we are doing.
Pam Flood:
So the data we want, that which is useful to us, then maybe we go back to individuals and ask. We can use
Dean’s connections for that piece. Does that make more sense?
Carol Carriuolo:
Then they would be filling in the holes and it would make more sense. Do we need to start talking about what
makes good strategy for this group? Our criteria for making recommendations?
Pam Flood:
And start asking questions like is it measurable, so that we start putting forward a model. We need to see if
there are negative unintended aspects.
We are online, so if you have ideas or thoughts, or if you have something that is not working for you, you can
E-mail it to us. It does not have to go to the whole group. As we close, I would like a show of thumbs, a
temperature reading for us. This will be our closing after Deb shares out. How are we doing?
Participant: I feel fine about it. I would like to see Dean’s data.
Carol Carriuolo:
We need input as to what makes it work for you.
(Debbie arrives to give an update on the legislative process. Strategy group adjourns at 3:50 PM.)
NEXT STEPS:
ACTION PERSON RESPONSIBLE OUTCOME/DUE DATE
Data information Dean 2 weeks
Sharing resources Any relevant resources On-going
Dean sharing data Dean Next meeting
AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME:
Understanding data sources
Invite Jay Yeo to next meeting, tell in detail what they capture for data
Invite Jim Rier, and John Kiestead
What makes good strategy
21
22